Doctors’ perceptions of the prognostic benefit of statins in patients who have had myocardial infarction

[Health Professionals expectations' about the benefit of regular Primary Care interventions]

AIM

Examine the expectations expressed by healthcare professionals about the benefit of several primary prevention interventions that are usually carried out in The Primary Care Consultations with evidence from moderate-high validity studies.

DESIGN

Descriptive Cross-sectional Study by Survey.

SITTING

Spanish Primary Healthcare Centers, between February 6 and May 5, 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

General Practitioner and other practicing Primary Care professionals.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

a) the number and percentage of participants whose estimate of benefit deviates from the benefit supported by the evidence; b) the magnitudes of OVERestimation, NORMOestimation and UNDERestimation of each participant and each professional subgroup.

RESULTS

Of the 701 respondents (67% women), 694 answered all eight questions and 4 between one and seven. The overestimation of benefit in the 8 interventions ranged from 86% to 90% of all medical participants and between 90% and 96% of all nursing participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the surveyed (healthcare) professionals overestimate both, prevention activities and preventive treatments, this may lead them to instil false hope in patients, to put patients at risk of serious side effects arising from such interventions and to squander resources.

GPs' understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: an online survey

Background

GPs prescribe multiple long-term treatments to their patients. For shared clinical decision-making, understanding of the absolute benefits and harms of individual treatments is needed. International evidence shows that doctors’ knowledge of treatment effects is poor but, to the authors knowledge, this has not been researched among GPs in the UK.

Aim

To measure the level and range of the quantitative understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for common long-term conditions (LTCs) among GPs.

Design & setting

An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to GPs in the UK.

Method

Participants were asked to estimate the percentage absolute risk reduction or increase conferred by 13 interventions across 10 LTCs on 17 important outcomes. Responses were collated and presented in a novel graphic format to allow detailed visualisation of the findings. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Results

A total of 443 responders were included in the analysis. Most demonstrated poor (and in some cases very poor) knowledge of the absolute benefits and harms of treatments. Overall, an average of 10.9% of responses were correct allowing for ±1% margin in absolute risk estimates and 23.3% allowing a ±3% margin. Eighty-seven point seven per cent of responses overestimated and 8.9% of responses underestimated treatment effects. There was no tendency to differentially overestimate benefits and underestimate harms. Sixty-four point eight per cent of GPs self-reported ‘low’ to ‘very low’ confidence in their knowledge.

Conclusion

GPs’ knowledge of the absolute benefits and harms of treatments is poor, with inaccuracies of a magnitude likely to meaningfully affect clinical decision-making and impede conversations with patients regarding treatment choices.

General practitioners' perspectives on the prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and prevention of CVD is a public health priority. This paper aims to describe the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the prevention of CVD across different contexts.

DESIGN

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies using the Enhancing Transparency of Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) framework.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from database inception to April 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included qualitative studies on the perspectives of GPs on CVD prevention.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used HyperRESEARCH to code the primary papers and identified themes.

RESULTS

We selected 34 studies involving 1223 participants across nine countries. We identified six themes: defining own primary role (duty to prescribe medication, refraining from risking patients' lives, mediating between patients and specialists, delegating responsibility to patients, providing holistic care); trusting external expertise (depending on credible evidence and opinion, entrusting care to other health professionals, integrating into patient context); motivating behavioural change for prevention (highlighting tangible improvements, negotiating patient acceptance, enabling autonomy and empowerment, harnessing the power of fear, disappointment with futility of advice); recognising and accepting patient capacities (ascertaining patient's drive for lifestyle change, conceding to ingrained habits, prioritising urgent comorbidities, tailoring to patient environment and literacy); avoiding overmedicalisation (averting long-term dependence on medications, preventing a false sense of security, minimising stress of sickness) and minimising economic burdens (avoiding unjustified costs to patients, delivering practice within budget, alleviating healthcare expenses).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs sought to empower patients to prevent CVD, but consideration of patients' individual factors was challenging. Community-based strategies for assessing CVD risk involving other health professionals, and decision aids that address the individuality of the patient's health and environment, may support GPs in their decisions regarding CVD prevention.

Patients' estimations of the importance of preventive health services: a nationwide, population-based cross-sectional study in Portugal

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in the context of primary care preventive health services, the level of importance that Portuguese patients attribute to different preventive activities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Primary Healthcare, Portugal.

PARTICIPANTS

1000 Portuguese adults selected by a stratified cluster sampling design were invited to participate in a computer-assisted telephone survey. Persons with a cognitive or physical disability that hampered the ability to complete a telephone interview and being a nursing home resident or resident in any other type of collective dwelling were excluded.

OUTCOMES

Mean level of importance assigned to 20 different medical preventive activities, using a scale of 1-10, with 1 corresponding to 'no importance for you and your health' and 10 indicating 'very important'.

RESULTS

The mean level of importance assigned to medical preventive activity was 7.70 (95% CI 7.60 to 7.80). Routine blood and urine tests were considered the most important, with an estimated mean of 9.15 (95% CI 9.07 to 9.24), followed by female-specific interventions (Pap smear, mammography and gynaecological and breast ultrasounds), with mean importance ranging from 8.45 (95% CI 8.23 to 8.63) for mammography to 8.56 (95% CI 8.36 to 8.76) for Pap smear. Advice regarding alcohol consumption (6.18; 95% CI 5.96 to 6.39) and tobacco consumption (5.99; 95% CI 5.75 to 6.23) were considered much less important.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reveal that Portuguese patients overestimate the importance of preventive medical activities, tend to give more importance to diagnostic and laboratory tests than to lifestyle measures, do not discriminate tests that are important and evidence-based, and seem not be aware of the individualisation of risk. Family physicians should be aware of these optimistic expectations, because these can influence the doctor-patient relationship when discussing these interventions and incorporating personalised risk.

Decisions on statin therapy by patients' opinions about survival gains: cross sectional survey of general practitioners

Background

Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease provide little guidance on how patients’ preferences should be taken into account. We wanted to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) are sensitive to patient preferences regarding survival gains from statin therapy.

Methods

In a cross sectional, online survey 3,270 Norwegian GPs were presented with a 55 year old patient with an unfavourable cardiovascular risk profile. He expressed preferences for statin therapy by indicating a minimum survival gain that would be considered a substantial benefit. This survival gain varied across six versions of the vignette: 8, 4 and 2 years, and 12, 6 and 3 months, respectively. Participants were randomly allocated to one version only. We asked whether the GPs would recommend the patient to take a statin. Subsequently we asked the GPs to estimate the average survival gain of life long simvastatin therapy for patients with a similar risk profile.

Results

We received 1,296 responses (40 %). Across levels of survival gains (8 years to 3 months) the proportion of GPs recommending statin therapy did not vary significantly (OR per level 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99 to 1.16). The GP’s own estimate of survival gain was a statistically significant predictor of recommending therapy (OR per year adjusted for the GPs’ age, sex, speciality attainment and number of patients listed 3.07, CI 2.55 to 3.69).

Conclusion

GPs were insensitive to patient preferences regarding survival gain when recommending statin therapy. The GPs' recommendations were strongly associated with their own estimates of survival gain.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments

PURPOSE

An informed decision to accept a health care intervention requires an understanding of its likely benefit. This study assessed participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Three general practitioners sent questionnaires to all registered patients aged 50 to 70 years. Patients agreeing to participate in the study were asked to estimate the number of events (fractures or deaths) prevented in a group of 5,000 patients undergoing each intervention over a period of 10 years, and to indicate the minimum number of events avoided by the intervention that they considered justified its use. The proportions of participants that overestimated each intervention's benefit were calculated, and univariate and multivariable analyses of predictors of response were performed.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 36%: 977 patients were invited to participate in the study, and 354 returned a completed questionnaire. Participants overestimated the degree of benefit conferred by all interventions: 90% of participants overestimated the effect of breast cancer screening, 94% overestimated the effect of bowel cancer screening, 82% overestimated the effect of hip fracture preventive medication, and 69% overestimated the effect of preventive medication for cardiovascular disease. Estimates of minimum acceptable benefit were more conservative, but other than for cardiovascular disease mortality prevention, most respondents indicated a minimum benefit greater than these interventions achieve. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions.

CONCLUSION

Patients overestimated the risk reduction achieved with 4 examples of screening and preventive medications. A lower level of education was associated with higher minimum benefit to justify intervention use. This tendency to overestimate benefits may affect patients' decisions to use such interventions, and practitioners should be aware of this tendency when discussing these interventions with patients.